words: "the paradox of modernity"
The latest Mars Hill Audio Addenda came to my email inbox last week. The following quote by the late British theologian Colin Gunton was the header for the email:
"Why is it that a world dedicated to the pursuit of leisure and of machines that save labour is chiefly marked by its levels of rush, frenetic busyness and stress? . . . The paradox of modernity... is that however successful the understanding of time and space, the modern is less at home in the actual time and space of daily living than peoples less touched by [modern] changes. . . . Whatever the integration of space and time in science, in modern life there is at once cultural stagnation and febrile change, a restless movement from place to place, experience to experience, revealing little evidence of a serene dwelling in the body and on the good earth."
"Why is it that a world dedicated to the pursuit of leisure and of machines that save labour is chiefly marked by its levels of rush, frenetic busyness and stress? . . . The paradox of modernity... is that however successful the understanding of time and space, the modern is less at home in the actual time and space of daily living than peoples less touched by [modern] changes. . . . Whatever the integration of space and time in science, in modern life there is at once cultural stagnation and febrile change, a restless movement from place to place, experience to experience, revealing little evidence of a serene dwelling in the body and on the good earth."
Colin Gunton, The One, the Three and the Many: God, Creation and the Culture of Modernity
I sincerely recommend taking a look at Gunton's book if you agree with the above excerpt. It was developed from his 1992 Bampton Lectures. The first half of the book seeks to level modernism and postmodernity (what Gunton calls 'late-modernity'), whereas the second half of the book attempts to build a stable foundation through an understanding of the Holy Trinity (specifically through the doctrine of perichoresis). Miroslav Volf has attempted to argue against much of the thesis put forth in the book. In my opinion he has not succeeded; however, you may want to look at him too.
Posted by
Anonymous |
11:41 PM